Term
| Team Integrative Strategies |
|
Definition
| Packaged deals, MESOs, loyal to interests open to options, post-settlement settlements, Ask questions |
|
|
Term
| How to build on Differences? |
|
Definition
| fractionate/add issues, trade issues with different priorities, contingency contracts. |
|
|
Term
| When working with teams beware 3 things: |
|
Definition
| 1. common-knowledge effect 2. false consensus effect, failing to present a common front, "monolithic" |
|
|
Term
| Pros and cons of rights/power based disputes |
|
Definition
Pros: est. position of strength from which to negotiate
con: hard to see interests, hard to make concessions, bad when you have low power. |
|
|
Term
| When to use rights or power? |
|
Definition
when party won't come to table
when you cannot focus on interests
when parties are positioning themselves, social significance precedent |
|
|
Term
| How to make wise threats? |
|
Definition
Willingness-be willing to follow through
Motivate-threaten to motivate not punish
Save Face- make it easy for the other side to meet your demands, no revenge
Be exact-when and what |
|
|
Term
| How can you defuse threats? |
|
Definition
-ignore
-don't reward with concessions
-label the tactic
-combine rights and interests in your response |
|
|
Term
| How to approach a dispute? |
|
Definition
open with rights and quickly segue into interests
-apologize when needed
focus on interests
-act the way you want them to act |
|
|
Term
| Distributive Negotiation strategies |
|
Definition
1. Know your BATNA
2. Define and commit to your RP
3. Focus on strengths-realistic
4. Research other party's BATNA & RP
5. Aggressive first offer
6. Strategic concessions
7. Focus on goal during negotiation &RP:) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Assume other part wants the opposite of you
2. Emotions
3. Behavioral committment
4. Unrealistic aspirations, fixed on positions
5. fear of sharing info
6. lack of preparation |
|
|
Term
| Distributive vs. Integrative |
|
Definition
Distributive: win/lose, conceal info, positions, single issue, competitive, short-term relationshio
Integrative: win/win, share info, interests, focus on multiple issues, cooperative problem solving, long term relationship |
|
|
Term
| Strategies to creating Value |
|
Definition
-Cooperative approach: treat as joint problem, brainstorm
-focus on interests not positions
-search for differences
-Make and ask for proposals |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Pros: special expertise, confidentiality, detached, increased tactical flexibility
Cons: may not have aligned interests, bluffing, cost $, more to manage, communication errors |
|
|
Term
| How can you tell if someone is bluffing? |
|
Definition
| Ask the same question in multiple ways, watch body language |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Intro
2. Reframe each parties desires
3. list of issues-agenda
4. exploration and prioritization of issues
5. brainstorm solutions
6. caucus-reality check
7. agreement-include contingencies |
|
|
Term
| When/Why call a mediator? |
|
Definition
1. parties unable to communicate
2. mistrust
3. reactive devaluation
4. Over-confidence bias
5. strong positional claims
6. past/blame focus-emotions run high
7. might go to litigation ($$)
8. recurring disputes |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| not valuing what a specific person says |
|
|
Term
| Facilitative mediation vs. Evaluative mediation |
|
Definition
Facilitative: does not present own views, clarifies issues, enhances communication, the parties decide what to do.
Evaluative: assesses the strengths and weaknesses of claims, proposes solutions, predicts court outcomes |
|
|
Term
| Pros of Contingency contracts? |
|
Definition
| Establish incentives for performance, risk sharing, solve problems of trust, managing decision making biases, diagnosing disingenuousness |
|
|
Term
| When should you use a contingency contract and when not? |
|
Definition
Yes-continued interaction, enforce ability, clarity and measurability
No- you can't afford to lose, other party has more info, no objective measure of outcome. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a decision making process which 2+ people agree how to allocate scare resources
--getting what you want for their reasons. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| fail to ask, leave money on the table, settling to too little, walking away from the table (emotion), settling for worse terms than current situation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Zone of possible agreement(overlap. Space between buyer's RP and seller's RP |
|
|
Term
| Things that lead to feeling you must always make a deal (getting to yes) |
|
Definition
| commitment bias, deception, confirmation bias (deception of self), unwilling to forgo sunk costs. |
|
|
Term
| To lie is to do 2 things: |
|
Definition
1. make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2. create a false or misleading impression |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Coalitions of individuals, groups, corporations, or nations |
|
|
Term
| 2 important aspects of forming alliances |
|
Definition
1. trust
2. rapport
also, relationship and process influence it |
|
|
Term
| In strategic alliances power derives from 2 things |
|
Definition
1. control of resources
2. process |
|
|
Term
| Psychological effects of holding power |
|
Definition
-self-serving
-in-group bias (you're in if you are one of us)
- system justification (rules are fair) |
|
|
Term
| behavioral effects of holding power |
|
Definition
disinhibition and risk taking (I'm invincible)
Creation of systems, rules, and ideologies that favor the self and the group |
|
|
Term
| How can powerlessness corrupt? |
|
Definition
-blind obedience
-disengagement and neglect
-rebellion |
|
|
Term
| Barriers to effective group negotiation |
|
Definition
social loafing effect (disengaged)
In-group bias-us vs. them. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| inherently unstable--want as little of a group as possible, if trust is broken stability is almost impossible. |
|
|
Term
| How to stop the bad spiral of coalitions? |
|
Definition
procedural rules
costs of not joining
select coalition members who have a good commitment and reputation
establish interpersonal ties, form coalitions that span multiple issues |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Names, photos, emotional appeal , principles and values, order of presentation, negative advertising. (Its' always good to be last. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| tendency for more positive attitudes toward what/who one advocates than to what/who others advocate. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. identify decision alternatives
2. Evaluate alternatives in terms of value systems and frameworks
3. Make decision
4. Action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Identify decision alternatives
2. Make decision
3. Choose value system to justify chosen alternative
4. Rationalization |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| concerns the actual distribution of resources. Goals is to maximize the well being of the worse-off individual |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Concerns the procedures used to distribute resources. Goal is to create justice in acquisition and transfer. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Distributive justice: how much each person gets?
2. Procedural Justice: how was this distribution determined? |
|
|
Term
| What helps with fairness? |
|
Definition
| transparency & Consistency |
|
|
Term
| Turn moral outrage into simple displeasure through: |
|
Definition
| transparent and consistent procedures |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Escalation of commitment, concession aversion, reactive devaluation |
|
|
Term
| •Looking for and focusing on .............in a negotiation helps to facilitate integrative solutions |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| •Coalitions bring people together behind a common interest to gain more ......as a collective entity |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| •Fundamental attribution error |
|
Definition
| o Tendency to over value dispositional or personality based explanations for the behavior of others while undervaluing situational explanations |
|
|
Term
| Kathy Aaronson’s tactic, ‘Auction’ from “winning at the sport of negotiation |
|
Definition
| o A person who claims they can get the product cheaper, better, or faster somewhere else |
|
|
Term
| •A term used to describe concessions that have been effectively packaged together |
|
Definition
| o Logrolling, only giving a concession when you are asking for one in return. (Issues packaged together are MESOS) |
|
|
Term
| •According to Sebenius and Lax, there are two broad strategies to effect agreements |
|
Definition
o To worsen your counterpart’s BATNA.
To highlight and enhance cooperative potential |
|
|
Term
| • Establishing credibility before exerting influence is part of Cialdini’s principle of......... |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| • Aligning incentive to help motivate parties to perform, is essential in order for a .......... ..........to be effective |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| • The biggest reason coalitions are inherently unstable |
|
Definition
| o They are structured to be competitive, not cooperative |
|
|
Term
| • Usually, you want to beat the counterparty in .........., in a justifiable manner |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| • A Pareto efficient agreement |
|
Definition
| o An agreement that cannot make any party better off without decreasing the outcomes of any party involved |
|
|
Term
| • After countering a ‘dirty’ negotiation tactic, this/these may be used to refocus on interests (Ethics in negotiation, page 180) |
|
Definition
o Asking questions, pausing, then offering more info
o Expressing gratitude with an apology
o Separate the people from the problem
o Ignore the tactic
o Call the tactic out
o Respond in kind (last resort) |
|
|
Term
| Ways to make concessions strategically |
|
Definition
o Exchange concessions (don’t make unilateral concessions)
o Develop a rational for each concession
o Make your concessions smaller as a goal approaches |
|
|
Term
| Post-settlement settlements |
|
Definition
| If you settled on something that isen't entirly agreeable, you can agree to meet at a later date to re-negotiate |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Represent every item on your planning document. Have a scoring system for you opponent too. weight issues, make sure that it's very editable. Package-level BATNAs and RPs. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Illusions of transparency
2. Moral hypocrisy, and
3. Prevent perspective-taking |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Willingness, focus on Interests, Save face, Exact |
|
|
Term
| • Three situations in which threats can be a necessary and effective tactic: |
|
Definition
o As negotiators attempt to push past a heated deadlock, threats might be required to get the other party to come to the bargaining table
o Threats can be a weapon against recalcitrance, steering a negotiation from impasse toward settlement
o Well-crafted threats may ensure that an agreement will survive the negotiation and secure implementation as well as follow-through |
|
|
Term
| What are the four standards of evaluating strategies and tactics |
|
Definition
PERS--personal ethics, End Result Ethics, Rule Ethics, Social Contract ethics
End-Result Ethics.-make the decision based on expected results, or what give us the biggest return on investment.
Rule Ethics.- The rightness of an action is rule by existent laws
Social Contract Ethics.- The decisions are taken based in the strategy and values of the organization. The same concept applies for communities and societies. |
|
|
Term
5 deception tactics
(False.BS.MD) |
|
Definition
Misrepresentation
Bluffin
Falsification
Deception
Selective disclosure |
|
|
Term
| When negotiating long distance what should you do? (MEDIA) |
|
Definition
1.Manage the effects of Communication characteristics
2.Enrich technology and relations
3.DIAgnose the other party's comfort zone in relation to your goals. |
|
|
Term
| Negotiators can create 2 kinds of value: |
|
Definition
1. Private Value
2. Common Value |
|
|
Term
| 3 types of experts/agents that you might want to use |
|
Definition
1.Substantive-tax person, auditor (someone with a specific skill)
2. Process-mediator, or negotiator
3. someone with special precedence-lobbyist, government official |
|
|
